You can color me unimpressed. Three hundred outgoing rounds in an attempt to kill a couple of idiots - and they only manage to partially succeed because one kid runs over the other as he drives away. Throw in shooting your own guy and I'd say that was a pretty big failure overall. Plus, another 200 rounds shot at a boat (on land and not really moving very fast) that has one unarmed teenager inside, and they still failed to kill him. That's five hundred bullets spent trying to kill two morons and only managing to kill one by luck. I am truly amazed they didn't manage to kill any other Boston residents. This inept, bumbling execution squad behavior we've seen here and with Dorner is really starting to get old.

Wolf_Blitzer:Your average idiot on the street, without even that modicum of required training and range time, is about a hundred times worse.

The problem with your theory is that the law abiding citizens who carry tend to actually practice, as opposed to just doing the bare minimum to pass the frighteningly basic tests. A guy who carries has several key differences from the police. They made a decision to carry, and know that requires a lot of responsibility. They like guns, and use them whenever possible. They don't have any guaranteed immunity (even stand your ground laws tend to not be as protective as they are made out to be), so they tend to know the applicable laws, and they also tend to be fairly careful about opening fire. If you look at the statistics between police and average joe when it comes to accuracy, target identification and if a shooting was justified (there's a legal term for that but I'm drawing a blank on it), average joe blows the police out of the water. You can't even chalk that up to police having more contact with criminals, as those are rates of failure not total numbers.

It's really no surprise, if you think about it. If you tell one group of people that if they screw up the slightest amount then they are going to be farked for life, then give another group almost complete immunity for even the largest of failures, which do you think is going to get sloppy?

Aarontology:Huh. I wasn't aware of that you can be charged for when someone else shoots someone.

Fascinating.

If you and a partner are robbing a store and your partner shoots and kills the clerk, guess what? You are on the hook for murder, even if you are only the getaway driver. If you start a shootout on a busy street and the cops shoot innocent civilians, guess what? You are at fault because you started the shootout. You created the dangerous situation. That is how the law does and should work.

Wolf_Blitzer:monoski: Wolf_Blitzer: monoski: Theaetetus: VegasVinnie: another 200 rounds shot at a boat (on land and not really moving very fast)

On the contrary... At roughly 41 degrees N, that boat was moving about 785 miles per hour. Frankly, it's impressive that they were able to get off 200 rounds while it was in range.

Not to mention 200 rounds fired at an unarmed suspect.

That was from the earlier gunfight, the one where Tamerlan Tsarnaev died, where they most definitely were armed.

Look it up, the reports are clear he was pulled from the boat unarmed. Being armed earlier in the evening does not constitute being armed when arrested.

Yes he was pulled from the boat unarmed, but I haven't read anything credible saying the boat was fired upon when he was apprehended. Just some eyewitness reports of gunshots which were probably the flashbangs the police used. If someone knows otherwise please show me.

Even when cops "do a great job," you can't count on them to act with integrity or to tell the truth. Every time the police give a statement, I now automatically assume we'll find out something very different later.

Theaetetus:Additionally, one cop killing another cop isn't felony murder in some states that require agency or the killing to be in furtherance of the crime. It is in other states where any proximately caused death counts.

Traffic deaths involving a responding officer have been charged as felony murder.

I seem to recall a case where an overweight officer had a heart attack while responding to something like a burglary call and it was charged as felony murder. I won't be likely to find a citation quickly, though.

insano:kim jong-un: insano: Aarontology: Huh. I wasn't aware of that you can be charged for when someone else shoots someone.

Fascinating.

If you and a partner are robbing a store and your partner shoots and kills the clerk, guess what? You are on the hook for murder, even if you are only the getaway driver. If you start a shootout on a busy street and the cops shoot innocent civilians, guess what? You are at fault because you started the shootout. You created the dangerous situation. That is how the law does and should work.

No. It means the cops have no incentive to avoid innocent casualties if the blame is deferred. Blame must be shared at a minimum.

The police wouldn't need to be firing in the first place if the perpetrator had not created the dangerous situation. This is the gist of 'but-for' reasoning. The police (regardless of their good/poor marksmanship) would not have fired their weapons near a civilian but for the perpetrator endangering the lives of police officers.

How about that incident when they were trying to find that ex-cop-now-cop-killer and the police shot up an SUV with some lady and her mom in the front seat. They took about 60 shots at an innocent pair of people who resemble nothing like the fugitive or his car.

Or when they shot up Amadou Diallo (sp?) with 40+ shots, only 11 hit? Or that vid capture on YouTube of about 6 police officers shooting circular firing squad style at a car, emptying their mags into the car but the car just drove on?

But what if I fire two shots and one of them goes into orbit and the other strikes a man dead. Then I am found not guilty because of a technicality. Then the guy is found to have been faking his death and the other bullet comes back down and really kills him?

There's a report out that in 2011, in all of Germany, police officers shot a total of 85 bullets. About half of them were just warning shots. Only 15 or so were at intended targets and they succeeded in putting them down (not necessarily killing them).

From what I have learned from Fark threads about normal citizens and cops:1) your typical concealed carrier will have way more range time than your typical cop2) because of more range time, your typical concealed carrier will be a crack shot compared to a cop

Therefore, to prevent innocent people getting hit in a shootout, just get rid of all cops and make it mandatory that every US citizen (that is a non-felon) conceal carry.

fredklein:Theaetetus: Nope: (i) although you're a direct cause, you're not the proximate cause - i.e. it's not a reasonable and foreseeable result of robbing a bank;

I wouldn't say that one cop being so incredibly poorly trained as to shoot another cop is "a reasonable and foreseeable result" of... anything. I expect professionals to act like it. I know, silly.

and (ii) (in many states) felony murder must be a killing done in furtherance of the crime, like killing a guard, cop, or a cashier.'

One cop killing another cop doesn't meet that definition.

It wasn't what I was asked, which was whether a bank manager shooting his wife would qualify, so take your "not cops derp" objection and shove it.

Additionally, one cop killing another cop isn't felony murder in some states that require agency or the killing to be in furtherance of the crime. It is in other states where any proximately caused death counts.

Aarontology:Would I, as a citizen, be immune from the consequences like the cop who shot the other cop, if I happened to be passing by a shootout, decided to use my CCR rights to aid the cops, but accidentally ended up shooting one of them or an innocent bystander?

No, because once Obama takes them away, you'll be liable for felony possession of a scary black assault-style gun and if you wanted to play hero, maybe spend a few months at the Academy first.